Posted on 07/11/2007 8:41:42 AM PDT by jellybean
A daily round-up of Fred news.
Fred Thompson Wanted to Get Rid of GOP Platform in 1996
July 10, 2007The Brody File has come up with a few interesting quotes from Fred Thompson's past.
First off, it appears Thompson wasn't a big fan of the GOP having any sort of platform back in 1996. In April of 1996, this is what The Memphis Commercial Appeal wrote:
Thompson wants to change the way the 1996 Republican National Convention is conducted. For starters, he wants to abolish the party platform - just toss the archaic thing away. 'It's the most useless device I've ever heard of,' Thompson said during a recent visit to Memphis."Thompson also said this in a separate article from April of 1996:
Thompson: "Does Anyone Remember What Was In The Last , Except Abortion? … If We Get Caught Up In Having A Platform Debate And Stuff Like That, We Deserve To Lose."In August of that same year, Thompson called abortion a "distracting issue." Read below from an Associated Press article:
U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson says he seldom hears about abortion in campaign travels throughout Tennessee and hopes the issue is downplayed at the Republican National Convention. The Tennessee Republican, a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt, is preparing for next week's convention in San Diego. He said the party must avoid distracting issues and focus on electing Bob Dole as president. 'We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us,' Thompson said in an interview with The Tennessean published Tuesday.Later in that same 1996 AP article came this part:
In 1996, Thompson Said Republican Ideals Don't Need To Be Written Down Into Platform. "Thompson said he opposes making early-term abortions a crime, as some Republicans would like to do with a constitutional amendment. 'But I don't think you should bolt on one issue. I'm still not convinced platforms are a good idea. We know what we believe in and I don't think we need to write it all down in a document,' Thompson said.So what are we to make of all of this?
On the GOP platform, I would think there are a great number of Republicans who believe the platform is very important because it stands for the principals the party unites behind. But as Thompson says, I'm sure there are those who think the document is a big waste of time.
On the abortion issue, it seems pretty clear that Thompson felt abortion was more of a distraction to the party. You get the sense that he saw it as divisive and something to avoid or downplay at the convention. Pro-lifers will take issue with that. I know Thompson's defenders will point to his stellar pro-life record in the Senate.
Fair enough. But be warned FDT fans: The other campaigns will be gunning for your guy. I don't think Romney or Giuliani will do it publicly. They have their own abortion issues to deal with. Instead, expect a stealth campaign where stories "pop up" about Thompson's past musings on this issue. They know he's a threat. They'll go after his past.
Did Fred Thompson Want To Dump Party Platforms?
A column by CBN's David Brody discusses statements by Fred Thompson in 1996, when he ran for re-election to a full term in the Senate, about the uselessness of party platforms. Saying that the Republicans "deserve to lose" if they spent the convention arguing over planks in the GOP platform, Fred suggested that no one cared about the end result of the debate:
First off, it appears Thompson wasn't a big fan of the GOP having any sort of platform back in 1996. In April of 1996, this is what The Memphis Commercial Appeal wrote: Thompson wants to change the way the 1996 Republican National Convention is conducted. For starters, he wants to abolish the party platform - just toss the archaic thing away. 'It's the most useless device I've ever heard of,' Thompson said during a recent visit to Memphis."Thompson also said this in a separate article from April of 1996:
Thompson: "Does Anyone Remember What Was In The Last , Except Abortion? … If We Get Caught Up In Having A Platform Debate And Stuff Like That, We Deserve To Lose."In August of that same year, Thompson called abortion a "distracting issue." Read below from an Associated Press article:
U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson says he seldom hears about abortion in campaign travels throughout Tennessee and hopes the issue is downplayed at the Republican National Convention. The Tennessee Republican, a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt, is preparing for next week's convention in San Diego. He said the party must avoid distracting issues and focus on electing Bob Dole as president. 'We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us,' Thompson said in an interview with The Tennessean published Tuesday.First, it should be noted that the AP couldn't get the record straight on Fred's abortion position as far back as 1996. Thompson wasn't pro-choice then or now. What Thompson argued was the prioritization of abortion as an issue in the 1996 elections, saying that voters had other priorities and that the GOP needed to focus on Dole's other qualities more. He wanted to do what Clinton had done in the previous election -- remain on topic on those issues that united Americans.
That was one of the reasons why Thompson wanted to ditch the platform. Especially after Pat Buchanan's appearance in 1992, Thompson wanted a unified convention, which he knew the Republicans needed to gain any momentum against Bill Clinton. Platform fights typically generate a lot of anger and passion and leave plenty of hard feelings -- and for what? How many voters read the party platform anyway? They generally exist to give the opposition some easy ammunition to use in general elections. Candidates rarely adopt the platform in its entirety, for the simple reason that they don't agree with all of it.
So, considering the vulnerabilities it imposes on individual candidates, the arguments and disunity it causes when drafting it, and the complete and utter lack of interest from voters, I think the question should be asked again: why have a platform at all? Brody says that the party should have a document which delineates "the principles that unite us," but that's not what a platform is or does. It's not a simple declaration of principles, which might tend to unite, but a lengthy and detailed list of policy positions that tend to divide us.
I'd say a Declaration of Principles sounds like a great idea. It should be left to the candidates to apply those principles to their own policy decisions, and then defend those positions in primary elections. Thompson was right in 1996, and his advice should probably get heeded in 2008.
UPDATE: Of course, the AP and Brody miss the fact that Thompson was campaigning for Robert Dole at the time, and the issue on the abortion plank of the platform was how to keep from alienating libertarian and pro-choice Republicans. This is why Dole and Thompson offered language endorsing "tolerance" for opposing points of view for a Constitutional amendment banning abortions altogether. William F Buckley himself questioned the usefulness of that approach and of platforms altogether:
But one recalls here the critic Hugh Kenner's stricture that writers should not hang their meaning on the correct placement of a comma. Mr. Kenner was talking about newspapers and the necessary hustle and bustle of going to press every day. The Pro-Life people are talking about back-of-the-bus treatment on abortion. If the platform goes out of the way to express "tolerance" for deviation on abortion, doesn't that make it sound as though abortion were uniquely privileged to emerge as the issue on which ambivalence is permitted? After all, there's nothing proposed for the platform that expresses tolerance for those who oppose Social Security laws, or a federal post office, or free lunches for children. ...What does not make much sense, to partisans either of Life or of Choice, is Bob Dole's attempt to play with words. We all know, or should, that political platforms are there to be seen but not acted on. It hurts the theatrical stand one wants to take to say this out in the open. But surely there are ways out of this.
RedState Radio: Part 3 of our conversation with Fred Thompson Can any President in the present political climate govern as a fiscal conservative? Seriously? The Republicans have been talking a good game, but under the present administration they have failed to deliver on their "small government" pledge. Instead, they've been Democrat-lite.
Today on RedState Radio, we pose the question to Senator Fred Thompson. He gives us his take on being a fiscal conservative. Arguably, given his socially conservative voting record and his "leave me alone" brand of practical conservatism, Fred Thompson might just be the one Republican candidate who can reunite social conservatives and libertarians within the Grand Old Party.
In addition to discussing whether a President can really be a fiscal conservative, Senator Thompson also tells us what he'd do first as President. Your mileage may vary, but it sounds to me like he takes a swipe at the current administration and, in particular, the Attorney General's inept management.
Lastly, Senator Thompson addresses the rumor that he once killed a man and whether a certain famous person in Los Angeles is really afraid of him. All this today on a great episode of RedState Radio.
Here's a hard link to the podcast.
Fred on Hanitty's radio program-7/10/07
If you find any Fred news, please post it to this thread. Whenever possible link to the print version of the article. The page will load faster without all the ads and doodads clogging up the page and the entire article will be on one page rather than broken up into 2 or 3 pages.
Please check Free Republic's Updated Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints before posting an article.
If anyone wishes to be pinged to this thread daily, let me know.
Where to find Fred on the internet:
Let me know if you'd like to be on The Daily FRead ping list.
The 2008 presidential race has long since begun. A little earlier than most Americans are used to. Announcements were made in early spring this year. Campaigning started immediately after.
Unfortunately for most of us, no one candidate truly stands out — that one individual we can all gravitate to, who really speaks what’s in our hearts and minds, who truly has our best interests at heart.
I’ve always believed no matter the party the best and brightest gets my vote.
I’m not alone in these thoughts. Our country needs a true leader, someone who can begin to change the face of politics in Washington, who is fearless enough to face the real problems in this country, bringing both parties together.
A president who can stand up straight, look our enemies the eye and say, “No more!” A president with compassion, values and strength of heart, who knows that it is Americans that make America great, who understands how much greater we can be and what it will take to be so.
Is there such a candidate?
Fortunately there is. He hasn’t yet announced his candidacy, but it’s my hope and belief that former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson is going to make a formal announcement very soon. He has all of those qualities that I’ve spoken of and more. His understanding of the issues and wisdom for their resolve is stronger than any candidate I have witnessed in 20 years.
Momentum has been building for some time now that Fred is the man all Americans can believe in. His direct approach to issues and homespun wisdom is something to behold. Keep your eyes open and ears pointed, for the next president of the United States is about to get in the race. The tsunami called Fred is upon us. God bless America!
Bennie D. Hollon, Brookville
http://www.pal-item.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070711/NEWS0302/707110332/1003/NEWS03
The Frednami will hit GOPlandia soon. The other candidates and their supporters are trying to stop it with sandbags which will be washed away with the first tide.
Thanks for posting the article. I got distracted by the 1000 post thread and am waaay behind in finding Fred news today. :)
Fear of Thompson meets Fear of Reality
The fuddy-duddies at the Los Angeles Times have been making quite a spectacle of themselves lately trying to paint Fred Thompson as secretly “pro-choice” and therefore a phony conservative, whatever that means. [Full disclosure: this writer thinks most political terminology is phony anyway.] They must be terrified that Thompson could actually win, doing this kind of dim-witted, desperate smear this early in the game. The folks at the Hotline are having a good time with the LAT today (scroll down).
But getting outside the world of beating a (half) dead horse (the LAT) and getting back to the real world, the truth is that the whole choice issue is hugely bogus. It’s over - and I suspect most people already know it. Something close to Rowe v. Wade is the law of the land and nothing is going to change that, except around the margins (partial birth abortion, etc.). Abortion to the vast majority of Americans has become a private matter, notwithstanding where they stand on it.
As readers of this blog know, I welcome that. As far as I’m concerned, the government should stay as far from our private lives as possible. But I will go further. I am almost certain that the three major Republican candidates (Giuliani, Thompson and Romney... Mr. McCain - he dead) live their private lives as if they were pro-choice - meaning that as intelligent adult males in our society that have had to deal with a “woman’s right to choose” for decades now. Those of you who are social conservatives, if you are living in reality, know that that horse left the barn so long ago you can’t see it now without a telescope. What you will hear from those Republican candidates on the subject will ALL be absolute baloney. And if you social cons insist on backing them into a corner on it, you will only help them lose. Up to you.
And of course you will be helping the Los Angeles Times justify their propagandistic nonsense and encourage more of it. Again, up to you.
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2007/07/fear_of_thompso.php
Thompson a surprise opener at Hannity concert Acting like a candidate, ex-senator cheers
By BEN SMITH
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/11/07It wasn't a rock star's reception, but 12,000 talk radio fans on hand for the Republican's first public visit to Georgia as a possible presidential candidate treated Fred Thompson as a contender.
"Run, Fred Run!" many yelled as they gave the actor and former U.S. senator a standing ovation Tuesday night at Sean Hannity's "Freedom Concert" at the Gwinnett Arena.
Thompson didn't say whether he would run, but he told one group of Gwinnett businessmen to "keep your powder dry," prior to the concert.
"I think we may be able to do something good for this country," Thompson said.
Thompson was a surprise guest at the Hannity event, but he took the stage before any of the political celebrities who headlined the concert. Oliver North and Newt Gingrich were scheduled to wow the Republican faithful, along with a medley of country musicians and entertainers.
Thompson's last-minute Georgia visit was launched after midnight Monday when the unannounced candidate told an aide that he would accept Hannity's invitation to attend the concert. The conservative Fox News talk show host made the offer to Thompson on Sunday afternoon, said Joel McElhannon, a staffer for Thompson's exploratory committee.
The Hannity audio was terrific...”they know who to be afraid of”.... ROFL!
..I literally CHEERED listening to Fred’s interview w/RedState...his answers on accountability were outstanding!
He really has stepped up his speaking style. That and the YR video were very impressive. No uhs and long pauses. Fred’s back! :)
I found part 1 and part 3. Where’s part 2? Redstate is so disorganized.
LOL! I wander around RedState all the time...lost;)
Maybe the first one was # 1 & 2??
L.A. Times Explains Missing Passage from Article on Fred Thompson’s Alleged Lobbying for An Abortion Rights Group
posted at 8:59 pm on July 10, 2007 by PattericoThe L.A. Times has appended the following paragraph to its online version of the story about Fred Thompson’s lobbying:
An earlier version of this article included a passage in which Judith DeSarno said Fred Thompson reenacted a cowboy death scene from one of his movies. The version of the article that was printed in Saturday’s newspaper replaced the earlier, online version. That newer version omitted the reference, because confirmation of the name of the movie could not be made before the story got reprinted. Based on DeSarno’s account, the scene that she said Thompson reenacted appears to be from “Keep the Change,” a TNT television western that would have been in production around the time of the lunch and dinner that she described.Here is the Internet Movie Database entry for the movie.
Interesting that the paper published something online that wasn’t yet confirmed. Are there different standards for online stories vs. print at the L.A. Times?
The blogosphere has forced the paper to explain why it whisked away the sentence in question — and that’s a good thing. But the rumors of the death of the story’s credibility were greatly exaggerated.
By the way, I don’t think the story, if true, means that pro-life conservatives should despair at the idea of a Thompson candidacy. All this story means, if it’s true, is that he didn’t feel strongly enough about abortion in 1991 to turn down work for an abortion rights group. That doesn’t mean he agrees with the agenda of abortion rights groups — or that he would appoint bad judges, which is the only relevance of any of this.
Trust me, his judges would be better than Hillary’s.
I read the other day the supposed movie was Thunderheart. So which is it?
Maybe that’s it.
Yeah, that site definitely needs an overhaul to make some sense out of it.
The uh’s and uhm’s and pauses when he was on Hannity the last time (not yesterday) had me a little concerned. The RS interview was much improved, and I’m glad to see it.
Yeah, they bothered me too. The one from the Freedom Concert was right on point though.
For Fred, I’ll grab a copy of Thunderheart and endure watching it. I already suffered through it in the theater when it first came out. Fred better be thankful.
No Wonder the Ladies Love Him We've all heard the story of how all of Fred Thompson's ex-girlfriends having nothing but good things to say about him. Now we know why - Fred! is a good listener, or so says Patrick Ruffini, posting on Hugh Hewitt's blog.
Patrick was actually commenting on FDT's recent successful appearance before the Young Republicans. It seems that Thompson scored major points by showing that he has, and will in the future, listen to the grassroots of the party. Here is the heart of Ruffini's post:
How much of the 50%+ Thompson is getting in blog straw polls, factoring out Ron Paul, is due to stuff like this -- flattering the blogosphere, making it about "you?" I'd bet more than a few points. And by all appearances, the feeling is genuine. FDT is very closely acquainted with the power of television, but when it comes to making major announcements, he goes to the blogosphere first. He doesn't have to do that.I don't think anyone should decide who to vote for based on choice of medium, but I like it all the same. The base is dispirited. It feels like what it thought were its friends have tramped over it. And it needs someone to believe in again. In that kind of environment, a little flattery goes a long way.
Contrary to what some may believe, I'm not a sycophant for candidates who tell me what I want to hear. A candidate should speak his mind, and lead, not follow, in bold directions. But I do want candidates who are all that -- and listen. And paying attention to the blogosphere is a good way of listening, because bloggers are usually the ones waving Republicans off of untenable political ground. I can't help but wonder if we'd had leadership with its ear a little closer to the ground, we would have avoided extra-curricular boondoggles like Medicare Part D and the Senate immigration bill. Knowing what's going on in the three-ring media circus and being able to respond effectively might be a desirable quality for the next POTUS, and not just for stylistic reasons.
Thompson demonstrated his awareness of the grassroots, demonstrated that he has been "listening", during an interview yesterday on the Sean Hannity radio program. Interestingly enough, he addressed almost precisely a point raised by G-man in his post below:
The media and Democrats are all whipped up now about carnage in Iraq, attributing it to our presence there. If we took their counsel and pulled out, with even more carnage ensuing, they would then howl about that and demand action. Damned if we do, damned if we don't - there's going to be no pleasing these people.Fred Thompson is obviously plugged into the true network of opinion drivers on the GOP side - the blogs and talk radio hosts like Hugh Hewitt, et al. There is no stench of inside the beltway consultants about Thompson - the fools who got the GOP into it's current mess do not have his ear, it seems. He appears to be informed by grassroot sentiments.
I believe that aspect of the Thompson "campaign" is felt by listeners, though I'm not sure they understand why they react so positively to his message. He is, in effect, feeding back to his audience the things they've already heard elsewhere. You could say this is manipulative - you could also say that he's merely demonstrating his willingness and ability to listen.
Let me see the firm’s billings with Fred’s name on it. I believe the LAT peddled a thinly sources story that doesn’t hold water. Just as ABC sexed up the Foley story to drive away social conservatives from the polls last year.
Stay dumb and lose.
Former GAO Man takes on myth of Fred Being "Lazy" It's been a while since I found something interesting about my preferrred candidate for President, Fred! (I mean truly interesting, rather than some goof ball attempt by the opposition to damage his credibility) but I think I found it today.
Jeff Nelligan, former Government Accountability Office official, speaks to his experience with then Senator Thompson, and his account contrasts pretty starkly with the description of his service often characterized in the media.
"Thompson was the guy who knew all these arcane, and while other members were dancing around getting headlines on the issue of the day, Thompson was grinding it out in Committee; I know, I had to attend those hearings and they were full of minutiae.In fact, of the many Members I’ve dealt with in my primo roll as the number-one Hill hack, Thompson was one of the two or three who always impressed me as immersed in details, the guy who took on these arcane and non-headline issues, and pursued them doggedly. Another, coincidentally enough, was Senator Joe Lieberman, ranking on the Committee and a genuine friend of Thompson’s."Not sure if I recall correctly, but a while back one notable right wing blogger (I think it was Captain Ed over at CQ) went over the last Congressional session Fred had served in and found him involved in (sponsoring, co-sponsoring, amending, etc) over 100 pending bills in the Senate. That's lazy? Hardly seems possible to be involved in over 100 pieces of legislation in a single session and be described that way, but when you are more focused on actually accomplishing something substantial rather than playing up to the Beltway media, and you are a R to boot, then I guess the facts don't matter much.
I'm not sure what you mean by this? Is it directed at me, the LA Times or social conservatives?
Sean Hannity’s Freedom Concert
Posted on July 11th, 2007
By Michael in Pictures, SupportersLast night I spent the evening with Chalie Daniels, Lee Greenwood, Sean Hannity and 13,000 wonderful people in support of our troops and the children of fallen soldiers. Couldn’t ask for more.
See the pictures posted at Fred's website.
More photos at Flickr.
I think the idea of lazy comes from the lack of Fred sticking his face in a TV camera to get a headline. Plus he didn’t go to a lot of the social functions [coctail parties] at the end of the day that a lot of congresspeople go to.
I’ve read this before, this account of Nelligan, plus the book Marie written about Marie Ragghianti who was his client. Marie knew one of his secretaries when he was a lawyer, and he worked so hard for his clients and expected his staff to work as hard as he did that this particular secretary quit. Marie hired him because she knew he was a hard worker and Fred did not disappoint her. She brought him a huge stack of records and files for her case and he went through all of them and learned what they meant to effectively represent her in court.
There is a huge difference between doing the work, and not doing the social things or TV interviews. He did the work and not the fluff.
Also, even after leaving the Senate, when he was an actor, that requires learning lines. Actors spend a lot of time preparing and long days filming. I think he said once it is 16 hour days. Plus he did work as an advisor on committees for the government for the past 5 years, plus the John Roberts confirmation and I’m sure a lot of things. There is a lot on his resume. Not the resume of a lazy person.
"In terms of being a target, all I can say is, they know who to be afraid of!"
social conservatives—see the Roger l. simon piece I cited earlier on this thread.
Thompson eyes August kick-off Thompson is likely to launch his presidential bid in August.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson is now likely to announce his presidential campaign in August, not mid-July as previously envisioned and will skip the Republican straw poll in Ames, Iowa, people familiar with Thompson’s thinking tell CNN.
The campaign-in-waiting is still being put together, and Thompson supporters say they want to have “100 percent” of the staff in place by the time of the announcement.
“Expectations are through the roof,” said one source. “We have to match those at every level. . . . We have to be more ready than any of these other guys.”
Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and John McCain both announced in June they would skip the Iowa Republican party’s presidential straw poll, scheduled for August 11.
Thompson created a state-level presidential exploratory committee in Tennessee in June.
– CNN Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowley
L.A. Times Preparing Another Hit Piece on Fred! The L.A. Times really has it in for Fred Thompson. Jim Geraghty reports:
Folks close to Fred Thompson expect another critical piece from the Los Angeles Times in the near future, this one focusing on Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn’s past work for the government of Chile. Apparently sometime around 1991 or 1992, the partners invited Fred Thompson to join them on a trip down to Chile aimed at drumming up additional business. Fred went on the trip, sat in on the pitch meetings, and then returned with the partners. Thompson did not do any work for the government of Chile, I am told.Allegedly, one primary source for this Times story is the same as the last one: former Congressman Michael D. Barnes (D-Md.).
It’s not clear what the paper is planning to accuse Thompson of doing. Geraghty says it has nothing to do with Pinochet, based on the timing.
If they’re trying to “pre-spin” whatever’s coming out, they’re being pretty mysterious about it:
The individual close to Thompson that I spoke to seemed to sense that the Times had not eaten their journalistic Wheaties in this endeavor. “There’s a difference in relationship between being [a lawyer] of counsel to a firm and being a partner, and they want to blur the distinction… [We] keep explaining that relationship, they don’t want to get it. Maybe we need flash cards for the L.A. Times.”When the L.A. Times is done, can I see those flash cards? ‘Cause I don’t get it.
Specifically, I don’t understand why the campaign is leaking this now — but not telling us anything specific that will help put the allegations in context. Maybe it will all become clear in time. Stay tuned . . .
Fred On The Nature Of Representation Fred Thompson sent an essay over to my good friends at Power Line to discuss the nature of legal representation -- and what it means for the lawyers. He notes that the current smear tactic of branding the attorney with the views of the client has been tried by his opponents before. Of course, Fred hasn't lost a race yet:
A lawyer who is a candidate or a prospective candidate for office finds himself in an interesting position because of the nature of the legal profession and the practice of law. This is true when the practice was as varied as mine, and it’s especially true when the office being considered is the Presidency of the United States.The easiest and most generally used tactic when running against a lawyer is to trade off a general perception that most people dislike lawyers. Goodness knows that a lot of lawyers have earned disfavor but, as it turns out, folks understand our system better than a lot of politicians think they do. In my first run for the Senate, my opponent tried the old demagoguery route – “He has even represented criminals!” – to no avail.
A first cousin of this ploy is to associate the lawyer with the views of his client. Now-United States Chief Justice John Roberts addressed this notion during his confirmation hearings. “… [I]t’s a tradition of the American Bar that goes back before the founding of the country that lawyers are not identified with the positions of their clients. The most famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre.”
Roberts pointed out that Adams was actually vindicating the rule of law. Every person, unpopular or not, is entitled to representation. He further said, “That principle that you don’t identify the lawyer with the particular views of the client or the views that the lawyer advances on behalf of the client, is critical to the fair administration of justice.
Be sure to read the entire essay. Not only is it well written, entertaining, and effective, but Fred chose the perfect forum in which to publish it.
GOP platform placemark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.